Biden admin expands Title IX to include ‘gender identity,’ sparking conservative backlash

“It will be the end of women’s sports, sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, sororities, and dorms – all vanquished by an administrative state fiat that almost no one supports”

The Biden administration published on Friday changes to the Title IX discrimination law to now include “gender identity,” setting the stage for legal fights with nearly half the states, which have passed laws to protect women and children from the transgender ideology.

The newly published Title IX regulations expand the federal government’s prohibition against “discrimination” to now include under its umbrella “discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.”

The move has drawn strong public criticism from conservatives, who have rallied behind the protection of women and children from transgender ideology in schools and public spaces, and the erosion of basic safeguards such as sex-exclusive locker rooms, restrooms, and sports.

Rep. Julianne Young, member of the Idaho legislature who introduced the Gem State’s recent Definition of Sex law (which affirms that “there are only two sexes, male and female”) expressed her outrage at the administration’s abuse of a law originally meant to protect women so that it now does just the opposite.

In comments to LifeSiteNews on Biden’s new changes to Title IX, Young stated, “It is outrageous and unconscionable that the Biden administration is now using civil rights law created to protect women to assault them, undermining their privacy, dignity, and safety!”

Heritage Foundation conservative policymaker Jay Richards, who has worked extensively on legislation regarding transgender issues, told LifeSiteNews that, “The new rule interpreting title IX is, in fact, an assault on the point of the law itself. The law is intended to protect Americans against sex discrimination. But the new rule defines sex – the biological difference between male and female – to include ‘gender identity.’ Gender identity refers to a supposed internal subjective state. It is manifestly not the same as biological sex. This new rule is a paradigmatic example of using the rulemaking process to subvert a law duly passed by Congress. If applied, it will mean the destruction of women’s rights in particular.”

Brandon Showalter, host of the Christian Post podcast Generation Indoctrination: Inside the Transgender Battle, and co-author of the book Exposing the Gender Lie, told LifeSiteNews:

The spirit of the age, the great lie of our time, is rooted in a heinous, false anthropology – that an ineffable ‘gender identity’ known only to the person claiming to have one – defines a human being at the most basic, ontological level. When a material falsehood such as ‘you are whatever you say you feel’ is enshrined in government policy, as it has been in the recently revamped Title IX regulations, there are real-world consequences and women are girls almost always bear the cruelest brunt. Human beings are only ever always either male or female. No one has ever been born in the wrong sexed body and no one ever will be. All people of goodwill must continue to resist the abuse and degradation that gender ideology is wreaking on humanity.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, (R-NC) chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, also strongly condemned the new regulation saying, “This final rule dumps kerosene on the already raging fire that is Democrats’ contemptuous culture war that aims to radically redefine sex and gender.”

Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who oversaw Trump administration reform of Title IX, which strengthened protections for women, told the Washington Examiner in February that Biden’s changes “may well be the most anti-woman regulation of all time.”

“It will be the end of women’s sports, sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, sororities, and dorms – all vanquished by an administrative state fiat that almost no one supports, which is why the Biden administration advanced it in the dark of night,” she warned. “Every parent and child should be horrified this rule is moving forward.”

DeVos said the new regulation “returns us to the untenable days where there is no due process on campus and instead radical gender ideologues call all the shots.”

“The rule is sexist, illegal, and unpopular, but appeasing the far-left flank is more important to the Biden administration than doing what’s right for students,” she insisted.

In a press release following the changes to Title IX, Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Rachel Rouleau said, “The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, threatens student safety and privacy, and undermines fairness in women’s sports. It is a slap in the face to women and girls who have fought long and hard for equal opportunities.”

“The administration continues to ignore biological reality, science, and commonsense, and women are suffering as a result. The administration’s new regulation will have devastating consequences on the future of women’s sports, student privacy, and parental rights, which is why Alliance Defending Freedom plans to take action to defend female athletes, as well as school districts, teachers, and students who will be gravely harmed by this unlawful government overreach,” Rouleau stated.

In May 2023, a group of 22 Republican senators led by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, called on the president to withdraw the proposed changes to Title IX, arguing they ran contrary to Congress’ clear intention in passing the law.

“Congress made clear that its intention in passing Title IX was to prohibit discrimination against women participating fully in all aspects of athletic and academic opportunity at institutions that received federal financial assistance,” the senators wrote. “This proposed rule uses weakly-associated case law and polarizing social concepts to broaden the definition of women and girls to include individuals who identify as women, and in doing so, the intent of the law is destroyed and women are marginalized yet again.”

Up Next

Now We Are Supposed to Cheer Government Surveillance?

Don't Miss

Transgender activists are threatening the author of scathing UK report on child ‘sex changes’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Carney should rethink ‘carbon capture’ climate cure

Alberta / 3 hours ago

World’s first direct air capture test centre to open doors in Innisfail

Energy / 3 hours ago

Is Carney ‘All Hat And No Cattle’?

Great Reset

U.S. rejects WHO pandemic amendments, citing threat to sovereignty

Published on July 18, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

The U.S. has officially rejected the WHO’s 2024 pandemic rule changes. In a joint statement, Secretaries Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Marco Rubio said the amendments threaten American sovereignty, free speech, and privacy—handing too much power to unelected global bureaucrats.

Key Details:

The U.S. State Department and HHS transmitted the official rejection of the 2024 amendments to the WHO’s IHR.
Officials cited threats to national sovereignty, vague terminology, and the WHO’s political susceptibility—particularly to China—as grounds for rejection.
The amendments would have mandated WHO-led responses, digital health documentation, and “equitable access” initiatives regardless of U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.

RFK Jr. just announced he has rejected the WHO’s draconian new pandemic treaty.

Every American should care about this.

“Last year, the World Health Organization’s governing body made some far-reaching amendments to its international health regulations, otherwise known as the… pic.twitter.com/GI9UzsTrKv

— MAHA PAC🗽 (@MAHA_PAC) July 18, 2025

Diving Deeper:

The rejection represents a sharp rebuke of the World Health Assembly’s 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), which sought to centralize global pandemic decision-making power within the WHO. Kennedy and Rubio emphasized the amendments’ “vague and broad” language and their potential to create policy rooted in politics and global “solidarity” rather than science and national interest.

Among the most controversial changes were new authorities for the WHO to unilaterally declare health emergencies, coordinate international responses, and guide member states toward “equitable access” to vaccines and other health commodities. The amendments also encouraged countries to implement digital health documents—raising red flags for privacy and surveillance concerns.

“The amendments risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy,” the joint statement read. Kennedy and Rubio specifically criticized the lack of public input in drafting the new rules and warned that WHO directives could suppress legitimate scientific debate and restrict Americans’ freedom of speech under the guise of “controlling misinformation.”

The officials pointed to the WHO’s well-documented failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, including its deference to the Chinese Communist Party, as a stark example of why international bodies should not be granted binding authority over U.S. domestic policy. “These amendments… fail to adequately address the WHO’s susceptibility to political influence and censorship—most notably from China—during outbreaks,” the statement noted.

Even more alarming, the statement highlighted that the amended rules would have bound the U.S. regardless of its current status in the WHO, essentially imposing obligations on a nation that is no longer part of the organization. This drew particular concern from Rubio, who has long warned against ceding U.S. autonomy to global institutions.

In reaffirming their commitment to “put Americans first,” Kennedy and Rubio vowed to continue resisting international encroachments on U.S. freedoms. “We will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties,” they declared.

This formal rejection marks a victory for critics of globalism and top-down health mandates, signaling that under the current administration, American decision-makers are prioritizing sovereignty, transparency, and constitutional protections over global consensus driven by unelected bureaucrats.

Crime

Former Epstein lawyer: There was never a client list

Published on July 18, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Jeffrey Epstein’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz says there was never a “client list,” calling the claim fiction in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He also defended President Trump, saying there’s no evidence of any improper or questionable behavior.

Key Details:

Dershowitz wrote that Epstein “never created a ‘client list,’” and clarified that the FBI only documented names brought up by alleged victims in interviews, which were redacted in released files.
He stressed that none of the redacted names are current officeholders and added that the veracity of the accusations remains unknown.
Dismissing rumors of hidden cameras used to entrap guests, Dershowitz said surveillance tapes existed only in public areas and were installed by law enforcement—not Epstein.

Diving Deeper:

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz addressed lingering speculation surrounding the late Jeffrey Epstein, his alleged surveillance operation, and his reported ties to public figures. Dershowitz, who represented Epstein years ago and has consistently challenged many media narratives surrounding the case, said the facts don’t support the sensational claims.

“Epstein never created a ‘client list,’” Dershowitz wrote, pushing back on the widely circulated notion that Epstein maintained a record of high-profile individuals for the purpose of blackmail. He clarified that the FBI had compiled names mentioned by alleged victims during interviews, but that those names were redacted in publicly released documents. “We don’t know whether the accusations are true,” he added. “The names mentioned don’t include any current officeholders.”

Dershowitz also sought to debunk claims that Epstein maintained a secret camera system in his guest bedrooms to entrap powerful visitors. “There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of his Palm Beach, Fla., home,” he wrote. According to Dershowitz, those surveillance cameras were installed by police after Epstein reported that money and a firearm were stolen from the property. “I am not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms,” he added.

Turning to President Donald Trump, Dershowitz flatly denied that any evidence exists linking him to wrongdoing. “Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and President Trump many years ago,” he wrote, before emphasizing that the relationship ended long ago. “That relationship ended when President Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, long before becoming president the first time.”

“I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by President Trump,” Dershowitz concluded.

His remarks arrive amid a resurgence of political and media interest in Epstein’s associations. But Dershowitz’s message is clear: much of the speculation is unsupported by evidence, and President Trump’s name should not be dragged into narratives that have no basis in fact.